The Ego of the Atheist

[S.A.M.]

A Jewish state is not a theocracy? Duh! An American or a Russian can move in on occupied Palestine, but a native Palestinian cannot. Thats a theocracy. Its like Saudi policy of Muslims only in Mecca. Any state where a person of another religion is considered a demographic threat is a theocracy.

[iceaura]

Who are these atheists?

Look around.

They also encouraged atheism and suppressed religion. I call that a conversion.

And then you believe your own namings - take them for granted.

So Mao was practicising Buddhism when he banned religion in China?

He wasn't acting against theism, when he banned atheistic religion.

[S.A.M.]

Look around. And then you believe your own namings - take them for granted. He wasn't acting against theism, when he banned atheistic religion.

It may be athiestic to you. I've never considered Eastern Buddhism as atheistic. Perhaps because ancestral worship and Buddha worship in India are familiar elements to me. And I do not consider Sri Lanka, Burma, Japan, China, Thailand as atheistic societies.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image..._416credit.jpg

[spidergoat]

Buddhism is atheist. You are conditioned to equate theism with sprituality.

[iceaura]

It may be athiestic to you. I've never considered Eastern Buddhism as atheistic. Perhaps because ancestral worship and Buddha worship in India are familiar elements to me. And I do not consider Sri Lanka, Burma, Japan, China, Thailand as atheistic societies.

The question is what Mao considered it - religion, or theism ? He and his heirs to power seem to have banned all religions and anything that looked like a religion, Falun Gong say, without much interest in the theisms behind them.

In my experience, there exist atheistic Chinese Buddhists - whose religion was banned, along with that of the theistic Buddhists if any, by Mao.

Meanwhile, you accept the worship of ancestors and Buddhas as implying deity, yet refuse to accept the veneration of Djinns, Shaitans, Virgin Marys, angels of one kind of another, Maos, Stalins, Kims, and so forth, as implying deity status for these entities. How is that line drawn ?

[codanblad]

just back on topic, theists are the ones with over inflated egos. they think everything is created for them by God, that they're more than flesh and bone, that an all powerful being loves them completely for being themselves. atheists think we're bags of meat, eating sleeping fucking dying, on a ball of water and dirt.

the idea that religious people don't care about themselves is stupid, their personal beliefs are more important to them than anything. following god, avoiding sin, getting into heaven is all up to the individual. atheists are free from imagining that their own actions are so significant.

[Crunchy Cat]

I haven't met any theistic atheists. Or any that are pro-theism. I'd be lucky to meet one who does not think atheists should have a disproportionate influence in all societies. Have you?

I've met religious (but non theistic) atheists and nearly all other atheists I've met are simply apathetic towards theists. The one thing that most (if not all) atheists don't want are people making 'God told me to' decisions that affect them.

[Balerion]

Like it or not, a person devoid of belief in something greater than himself experiences the consequences of his "lack of belief" in more ways than one. You may think it's as simple as not believing in God, but that distinctness alone affects your outlook on different matters as well. Your atheistic state of nature affects your outlook on life, and thus society, in a variety of ways - whether you recognize it or not.

I'm two pages late on this one, I'm sorry, but I gotta respond.

This "something greater than yourself" does not require a deity. All it requires is a police force.

Altruistic behavior has been observed in other primates. We are not alone in our kind deeds or seemingly selfless acts, at least on a basic level.

Now, to Troll, who constantly tries to pin crimes against humanity on atheists, she keeps missing the central point of any atheist's argument: If brutality and cruelty are both human traits, then you must accept that kindness and generosity are human traits as well, therefore require no presence of a god of any sort.

Atheism has never been the cause. It has never been the reason wars have begun, it has never resulted in murder of any kind. All it implies is an absence of faith in a deity, nothing more. It does not make you a more violent person, nor does it make you less aware of the very real consequences of your crimes on this Earth.

Theism, on the other hand, starts wars, continues wars, leads to persecution and oppression of non-believers and those any particular holy book deems as unworthy. It is a textbook on how to suppress human willpower, instinct, and freedoms. Just look at a Muslim woman who isn't allowed to show her face in public, or a Catholic girl getting beaten because her skirt comes over her knees. Its outdated dogma is littered with teachings that display a fear of humanity, treats us like babies, and gives us no credit for being able to stand up on our own. It is the ultimate insult to the human race.

You may be able to pick and choose the good parts out of your holy book, but in doing so you disprove its claim as the moral authority. Proof positive that any morality, positive or negative, within those pages is a human invention, not the result of divine inspiration.

[/soapbox]

[S.A.M.]

The question is what Mao considered it - religion, or theism ? He and his heirs to power seem to have banned all religions and anything that looked like a religion, Falun Gong say, without much interest in the theisms behind them.

In my experience, there exist atheistic Chinese Buddhists - whose religion was banned, along with that of the theistic Buddhists if any, by Mao.

Meanwhile, you accept the worship of ancestors and Buddhas as implying deity, yet refuse to accept the veneration of Djinns, Shaitans, Virgin Marys, angels of one kind of another, Maos, Stalins, Kims, and so forth, as implying deity status for these entities. How is that line drawn ?

Simple. The lines are drawn by the atheists themselves. If Mao banned worship in Buddhist temples, he considered it theism. Buddhists do not get an admit into the Communist party. If he killed Buddhist monks, he considered it a theism, if he destroyed Buddhist temples or converted them into "secular" institutions, he considered it theism. I'm using his yardstick as an atheist.

[ronan]

Buddhism is atheist. You are conditioned to equate theism with sprituality.

There are in fatc many kind of buddhism,
Jain, Charvaka and buddhism are indeed the three main so called atheist. But using the word atheist is misleading,

first the sanskrit word: Nastikas which refer to Jain, charvakas and buddhist is about the non-belief in the Veda.

but that is true that also as many other indian philosophical system, these three system share the non-belief in a god-creator.

but in indian philosophy, god or Bramhan is said to be consciousness, supreme consciousness, beyond any human understanding.

Also, In one kind of buddhism, the yogacarya budhism, consciousness is the only reality.

[iceaura]

Simple. The lines are drawn by the atheists themselves. If Mao banned worship in Buddhist temples, he considered it theism. Buddhists do not get an admit into the Communist party. If he killed Buddhist monks, he considered it a theism, if he destroyed Buddhist temples or converted them into "secular" institutions, he considered it theism. I'm using his yardstick as an atheist.

? ! Joke ?

I don't see much reason to take your word for Mao's thinking processes, especially in somewhat comical defiance of the evidence.

So far we have you assigning Mao vigilant atheism as a motive, based on his persecutions of perceived theists. Then we have you assigning his perceptions of theism based on his persecution targets. Circular is too complimentary for that - it's just straight assumption of consequent, in both directions.

There's no obvious reason Mao would care about private theistic beliefs. There are many good and obvious reasons he would want to discourage religions. He did in fact show no interest in personal theisms, and great interest in organized religions theistic or not. Is there a record of Mao persecuting anyone for theistic belief outside of an organized religion ? Is there a record of him tolerating a religion if it had no deity ?

And his heirs the same - Falun Gong adherents are filling prisons all over China, without a deity in sight.

The simple explanation, however it slights the romantic image of persecuted faith in God and deranged egomaniac atheists, is probably the best, no?

[CutsieMarie89]

I think both atheists and theists are equally egotistical. To say that you know for certain there is a god of some sort or to say you know there isn't a god of some sort is basically having a great amount of pride in you knowing you're right. Maybe that makes you proud not egotistical, but whatever. Of course fence sitters like myself are viewed as weak and indecisive, which I guess I am indecisive. But I choose to remain agnostic and skeptical on all beliefs. Which as I discovered in college drives some people to the brink of insane fury. I don't know why though.

[spidergoat]

Simple. The lines are drawn by the atheists themselves. If Mao banned worship in Buddhist temples, he considered it theism. Buddhists do not get an admit into the Communist party. If he killed Buddhist monks, he considered it a theism, if he destroyed Buddhist temples or converted them into "secular" institutions, he considered it theism. I'm using his yardstick as an atheist.

No, he considered it a religion. Theism and Religion are different, except in your mind.

[Gustav]

Why do you suppose none of the atheists on this forum [besides yourself, when you represent atheism] embrace the communist credo of atheism+science vs religion+tradition?

*cos they are................... dumbfucksci
*cos the capitalist credo is ingrained at a genetic level
*cos mccarthy scared the shit outta them

[S.A.M.]

Is there a record of him tolerating a religion if it had no deity ?

Yup, he tolerates the religion of atheism.

[Medicine*Woman]

Yup, he tolerates the religion of atheism.

*******